Slashdot Mirror
The Death of the US-Mexico Virtual Fence
eldavojohn writes "A couple of years ago it was announced that the Boeing-built virtual fence at the US-Mexico border didn't work. Started in 2006, SBInet has been labeled a miserable failure and finally halted. A soon-to-be-released GAO report is expected to be overwhelmingly critical of SBInet, causing DHS Chief Janet Napolitano to announce yesterday that funding for the project has been frozen. It's sad that $1.4 billion had to be spent on the project before the discovery that this poorly conceived idea would not work."
Asking immigrants to follow the law and immigrate legally isn't being a xenophobe.
Gone!
As a legal immigrant I can tell you that the hassle to be legal is so high that sometimes I wonder if I should just stop bothering and become illegal
is it dead... or just virtually dead?
Couldn't that $1.4 billion have been better spent buying Valium for the rampant xenophobes in Congress? Just trank 'em all out and stop them from worrying about a non-problem.
One of L. Sprague de Camp's fantasy novels features a tribe of barbarians who discuss all political issues twice: once sober, once drunk.
I think this is an excellent idea. Who's going to lobby Congress?
Now if we can just put an end to the asinine "war on drugs", we'll be in good shape. When the laws surrounding a substance are more harmful than the substance itself, there is a serious problem.
As far as the fence is concerned, if we had just poured $1.4 billion into Mexico's economy instead of this cluster fuck of an idea, workers would have less of a reason to leave Mexico and try to sneak into our country. They come here for jobs, but if we help create jobs in their own country...
We will never be able to keep them out, so why not make it so they have no reason to come here?
Living With a Nerd
The Mexicans who do enter illegally aren't exactly "stealing" great jobs from American citizens. They're picking crops, cleaning houses, flipping burgers, etc. The real problem is that our legitimate businesses are legally shipping planeloads of cash overseas for crappy products and services. Do we really need a million plastic "movie tie-in" figurines to be given away with Happy Meals, or blankets with arms in them?
I've heard this come up and the speaker never really supports it but just assumes everyone's on board. I've been to parts of the country without a substantial immigrant population, and believe it or not those crops get picked, those houses get cleaned, and those burgers get flipped. Americans will do those jobs, though usually for a bit more money (which is to be expected when you have to pay those pesky income and social security taxes.)
Asking immigrants to follow the law and immigrate legally isn't being a xenophobe.
No, but structuring the legal immigration process so that it's darned near impossible to immigrate unless you're highly-educated is.
My wife and I have been trying for years to help a friend of hers who is a Nigerian national living in Italy come over. At one point a staffer in our congressman's office got so frustrated with the law that she actually suggested that my wife's friend come on a tourist visa and then overstay! It appears that the best legal option is the immigration lottery.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
That depends on the content of the law.
They say they can't compete without cheap labor, but it they'd have invested as much in robots as they have in lobbying for protection and special access to illegal immigrants, then they'd be competitive without having to load NAFTA with special protections just for them. (free trade. ha!)
Now the restaurants and building industry are spraying malathion on the middle class suburbs. (just call your critics "xenophobes" and you WIN the argument. wtf? )
Just fine the crap out of people that hire illegals and the problem goes away.
but no. let's build a virtual fence and make sure it doesn't work.
If picking lettuce and sweeping floors is scarce labor, how come wages have gone down in these industries? Why is average working Joe making less? Wouldn't wages have gone up if the labor was as scarce as some people whine about?
This project was about two things:
1) Lining the pockets of a lot of people
2) Making those who fear illegal immigration feel better
Goal 1 was *very* successful. Goal 2, not as much but...there will be other mufti-million dollar projects coming up that will.
Seriously, did anyone really think this would work? Of course not. Plain common sense would immediately tell you this was destined for failure. Government and corporations simply ignored that and moved forward, That's a difference between "them" and "us."
Name one other country that allows anyone to cross into its borders regardless of the reason. Not only that, but allows those illegal immigrants to demand that their language be accepted and spoken by government service workers, and even goes so far as to essentially take over a government office for a day and fly the flag of the migrants country on that office's flag pole. http://workbench.cadenhead.org/news/3007/mexican-flag-raised-over-us-post-office
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Yeah. $1.4b of webcams and summer intern projects. What a great educational outreach program and subsidy for chinese electronics.
I grew up in a small midwestern town, and maybe this makes me xenophobic, but would it be too much to ask if people immigrating to this country would culturally integrate themselves to the point of at least learning the language?
A a woman who proudly defined herself as a Russian Jew, made it a point to tell me that her son, who was born in the USA, was learning Russian as his first language because she wanted him to have a Russian accent - and that he could learn English when he was in kindergarten.
She wouldn't let him watch American television at all, so no Sesame Street, Barney or Teletubbies.
And she has the right to do that, but isn't she perpetuating "us"-vs-"them" and making sure that her son doesn't assimilate?
I dunno ... maybe I "am" xenophobic or racist, or whatever. Intellectually, I don't think that people from other cultures are "bad" - but I'm also kind of sentimental about the small town homogeneous culture I grew up in. :\
It's just frustrating ...
No, if the hassle of being "legal" is too much for you then you should just return to your country.
And I say this as a Mexican who does not plan to go to the USA due to their current policies against immigrants.
Having said that, I believe the USA really needs to fix their immigration programs as they are broken. As I heard some American guy who used to work at IBM: Mexico does not have a problem with immigration, it is a USA problem. Mexico just "exports" very cheap labour. The problem is that the USA government has not managed to establish a proper program to fill up the demand of international labour in the country.
As our racist ex-president (Vicente Fox) put it: Mexicans do things that not even African-American (I believe he did say "Negros") want to do. So, if people in the USA do not want to work for whatever payment the market is offering, then let aliens do that work.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Name one other country with a statue considered to be a national symbol that says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breath free."
If we don't mean it, we shouldn't have that written on the Statue of Liberty. Just sayin'.
Living With a Nerd
The nature of political debate and commentary shifts. I can see it now...
* "We need to allocate more funds for Congressional statutory drinking"
* "I can't drink - my religion prohibits this. This law is unconstitutional, waaa!"
* "If you don't drink (Johnny Walker/White Horse/Jack Daniels) you're not a REAL American"
* (In Texas) "...how can we entertain a notion inspired by those East-coast ivory-tower appletini-drinking fag^H^H^H^H liberals...."
* (In Mass) "...how can we entertain a notion espoused by those cow-herding, tequila swilling hick^H^H^H^H conservatives..."
* "The honor'ble member is a MORON! (barf)"
* 100 drunk Senators song
* "More hookers!"
* Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the temperance movement? (Follows the "I have here a list of non-drinking employees of the Department of State" speech)
* Read my lips: no more scotch!
* "Trickle down" economics gets a whole new twist.
* "Mr. President, we must not allow a distillery gap!"
So we need to revise the legal immigration path. That's fine. But this labeling anyone who opposes open, rampant border crossing with zero control a "racist" or a "xenophobe" is unfathomable bullshit that needs to stop so the problem can actually be debated. It's an anti-intellectual tactic trotted out by the other side to clamp down on open discussion.
And, I'm sorry, but we can't take everyone who wants in. We can't afford it even in the best of times. Eventually you are taxing all income over X dollars at 100% and confiscating all corporate profits, and still don't have enough money. Then what? No other country in the history of the world has ever been expected to allow this willy nilly open border nonsense.
How are you going to get them sobered up?
>>>The Mexicans who do enter illegally aren't exactly "stealing" great jobs from American citizens
Just as I don't want to find some intruder walking around in my house without permission, neither do I want an intruder entering my country without permission. Pack them up, hand them a VISA application form, and send them home.
As for jobs, given the current ~10% unemployment rate, a lot of these businesses don't need to hire intruders from Mexico or Canada anymore. There are plenty of hungry or homeless Americans willing to pick crops or defeather chickens or whatever else it takes to earn money to survive.
Final thought - My Japanese and Chinese friends are not intruders. They applied for and got permission to come here (and eventually gain citizenship). I don't see why there should be an exception for any other group.
.
>>>The real problem is that our legitimate businesses are legally shipping planeloads of cash overseas for crappy products and services.
True but when oil rises to $200/barrel during the next decade that problem will self-correct itself. It will no longer be affordable to ship goods all the way from China, and instead the factories will be built on this continent.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
And, I'm sorry, but we can't take everyone who wants in. We can't afford it even in the best of times. Eventually you are taxing all income over X dollars at 100% and confiscating all corporate profits, and still don't have enough money.
This assumes that each new person is a net cost to government coffers. If that's true, then we have bigger problems than immigration.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Well, if you do not want Mexicans involved in trafficking drugs then Americans should stop consuming the darn shit. The only reason we keep pumping drugs through the Mexican transport channels it to make them arrive at the USA is because its population is gladly paying whatever price for them.
I am glad that at some point their dream-world gets touched by the reality of drug trading. Just look at the state of Cd. Juarez and the majority of the North of Mexico. If there was no demand on illegal drugs in the USA then the majority of the crimes related to that would be decreased considerably.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Along those lines...
Hair based drug testing relies on melanin - most drugs they test for bind to the melanin in the hair.
So detecting drugs in people with black hair is 50x easier than it is for people with blond hair.
So you get a situation where the entire process is racist, but most of the people have no idea just how biased it is and just accept on blind faith that the people in charge are doing the right thing.
You said it yourself.
They were trying to put up a giant wall of text along the border.
Is this the same logic that says the problem of Mexican drugs being imported into the US is the US's fault? Sure, there needs to be demand, but this is a bit like saying that murderers wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for all of these *living* people around!
Honestly, I believe the problem needs to be solved on both sides of the border. Americans are willing to pay a fraction of what they would to a local, to do a menial job. Mexicans are willing to risk life and limb just to get a chance to do that job. Something is very wrong with every part of this situation.
It wouldve been better spent in tv ads adressing the dangers drug consumption abuse, while at the same time you legalize drugs.
And then both mexico and the us would be happier, richer countries, with money spent where it should, instead of in a drug "war" nobody can win.
NO SIG
Maybe because the U.S. welfare/medicare system is already overburdened and therefore wants educated/professional people who will ADD funds to the system, not suck more out.
I'd also argue that the U.S. has enough people already. When the oil crisis hits in the 2020s (price rises about $200/barrel), we'll have a hard enough time feeding the 310 million persons we have now. We don't need more bodies to make the situation worse. I'm not saying we should completely stop immigration - just be selective in who we let in.
This is no different than how I only allow certain people into my home, not everyone who asks.
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE:
Let's just invite all 6 billion people to live here, even the deadbeats who have nothing to contribute. Let everyone enjoy the U.S.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Run the numbers... If you are lucky enough to be in the top 1% of income earners you are likely to be paying more into the system than you are getting out of it. For the rest of us, the system is so overbearing that we have no hope of paying for it. We are leaving that for our kids and grandkids (in the form of debt). It's simple, really.
The problem is that the USA government has not managed to establish a proper program to fill up the demand of international labour in the country.
At 10% unemployment, I'd say the USA government has not managed to establish a proper program to use up the supply of domestic labor either.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
When I was 16, I worked "flipping burgers". Rather than a high-school or college student doing it now, there's a 30 some odd polite (yes) Hispanic lady doing it. Is she here legally? I can't say, but I suspect she is. As well several of the staff.
On a higher level, at my current job (before our buy out), several people were making near or over $40k using bogus SSNs. Were THEY here legally? Cant say -- but they all bailed during our company buy out (and re-hire screening). I dont know about you, but I'd say $40k/year is far from your "[not] exactly great jobs [for] Americans" comment.
That said, my wife is a legal immigrant (from Syria). Came here when she was 19. Here entire family is from either Syria or Lebanon. Two of my grand parents immigrated legally. The others (except maternal grandfather's family) came one generation sooner. Apparently Pop-pop's family goes back to the early 1700s or earlier in Deleware.
What bothers me is people try to make this about race or "xenophobia". It's not. Its about national sovereignty. Why would it be bad to protect our southern border in the exact same way that Mexico protects it's southern border? I understand why Mexico protests -- as it would mean an end to a HUGE part of it's GDP (money flowing back in from the US from Mexican nationals working in the US illegally).
Absolutely, those jobs will get taken by Americans - often high school students and people going to college part time. Problem is today in most cities you can't get a job as a burger-flipper as a high school student. They simply aren't available.
Similarly, if you don't manage to get a college degree and want to get a job you will find that minimum wage jobs pretty much require speaking Spanish, because all your co-workers speak nothing but Spanish. If you are bilingual and have even a little bit of experience you can be the "foreman" but of course there are only a few of those jobs available.
The work that can't be outsourced is now going to low-wage workers right here in the US. Because these people are earning 10x what they could get back home, they are willing to put up with anything to get and keep minimum-wage jobs. This isn't going to change when they become legal, voting citizens. We are building our very own slave underclass right under our noses and most people just don't care. Somehow, we are doing this to "help" the poor in Mexico. Which isn't helping at all because it just allows the upper class there to ignore the situation.
Yes, but how do you detect drugs in the hair of somebody who doesn't do drugs?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It's sad that $1.5 billion had to be spent to try and protect honest God-fearing Americans from poor Mexicans who wanted to pick our fruit for minimum wage.
As I said... bigger problems than immigration. And, actually, given the Ponzi-scheme nature of what we've been doing for decades now, plus the decline in native birth rate, we may NEED massive immigration just to have a prayer of eventually every catching up.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The only thing coming out of Washington that is good for 'We The People', is gridlock. When they actually do stuff, it always seems to cost us more.
Well, that just might be the intent. After all, for several decades now the US government has been mostly run by people who consider corporate profits the most important thing in the world. Of course, we've long used the term "pork" to refer to Congress passing laws designed to funnel money to companies in their district. This story is just a more blatant recent version of this, where the money is funneled to construction companies while openly ignoring questions about whether it'll even work. The real answer, of course, is "Who cares?", since the actual goal was enriching the officers and stockholders of the construction firms.
The other growing example of this is the US pseudo-debate over health care. If you listen to this "debate" at all, it rapidly becomes clear that they almost never discuss health care itself. Rather, they always talk about the money, primarily insurance money. The main consideration in both Congress and the White House is that the existing insurance companies and the flock of other medical management firms, which do no actual medical work at all, maintain or increase their income. Actual medical care is far down in the list of priorities. Even when corporations such as hospitals are discussed, the "issues" are things like profits, mergers & acquisitions, etc.; they rarely deal with any actual medical issues.
It was especially blatant in the recent "bank bailout". Many analysts reported that the government's support money went almost entirely into three things: officer bonuses, share dividends and acquisitions of smaller financial firms. Almost nothing went into fixing the problems that had got the financial system in trouble. So this was yet again a way of funneling money into the corporate owners, with no concern for whether it solved any actual problems.
But none of this should be surprising. We've even read here frequently how the only important thing is corporate profit, and corporations exist for no other purpose. When this is the major source of almost all campaign funding, you should expect exactly what we've got. And it's the main ideology in US politics these days, in both major parties and several minor parties.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
This was all about "sensing". It didn't actually do anything to stop border crossers.
Multiple fences with a patrol road between them, plus a chain of towers to discourage people cutting the fence, might actually work. The sections with physical fences are doing their job now. There's solid fence from the Pacific Ocean to Yuma, AZ., which has pushed crossing attempts into Texas and the desert.
The point is that white people get to take drugs and get away with it while the browner people do not.
Selective enforcement based on hair color is racism.
But thanks for demonstrating just how deeply some people have abrogated their critical thinking skills to the war on drugs.
Americans will do those jobs, though usually for a bit more money (which is to be expected when you have to pay those pesky income and social security taxes.)
Many illegals also pay income and social security taxes. In fact, they often pay MORE than legal residents would, because they don't dare file for the income tax refund.
Name one other country with a statue considered to be a national symbol that says "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breath free."
If we don't mean it, we shouldn't have that written on the Statue of Liberty. Just sayin'.
The French knew what would happen. Those bastards set us up!
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
There's a lot of packing plants in the midwest that used to provide men a living wage for their families. Those guys are almost all gone and in their place are 30 guys named Jesus who all share the same social security number.
American citizens had those jobs and DID those jobs for years and years. It wasn't until outfits like Hormel, IBP, and other found it was cheaper to higher the Hispanics that supposedly no one wanted them.
I'd posit that this is true for MANY of these jobs that Americans supposedly don't want.
No, you're absolutely right. It's not the government's job to create jobs.
IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO PATROL THE FUCKING BORDER
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
The fallacy in your comparison is that illegal immigration isn't harmful per si - the only "harm" it causes is violation of law. Murder destroys life, regardless of whether it's considered a crime or not.
Of course there are fiscal issues when people hire workers that officially don't exist, but I'm willing to bet that if the immigration process weren't so long and cumbersome the huge majority of illegals would be running to the immigration offices. It's obviously better for the individual to be legal than an alien, and if they still can't do it, then it's somebody else's fault.
The Mexican government can be argued to be at fault for not providing proper employment within the homeland, but defending that point is very naïve. The USA doesn't have a 0% unemployment rate either.
Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
Each new person? No. But I would say it's safe to assume that each new illegal immigrant (undocumented worker, labor sans paper -- whatever) is.
Do a little research. In 2004, it was estimated that 15% of California's public student body were children of illegal aliens. At around 6.2 million students today, 15% (assuming the number hasn't increased) comes out at around 1 million students. At a cost of about $9k-$12k per student, That's nearly $100 billion dollars a year. JUST in educating them. That's not counting the costs in "free" or "subsidized" lunches, either. Or "free" transportation.
Do you have any idea how many people it takes to generate 100 billion in state tax revenue for California? How many people who actually aren't using fake SSNs and setting the w-2s so they get next to no income withholding?
Sure it has. Unemployment benefits expire after a little while, at which time job-seekers will lower their asking price and the rest will sort itself out.
Anybody can find work. They are just having trouble finding work they like, at a pay rate that supports their prior lifestyle.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
This thing has been shocking for years. At every major point in the development, Boeing basically said, "trust us" and the Government basically said, "OK".
Where is the design and analysis, where is the small-scale working model, where is the prototype, where is the incremental build up, where are the TEST RESULTS?????
I mean come on people! Committing to full scale production before you've seen a working model is foolish. Committing to it AGAIN, even when you've NEVER seen improvement in the original performance is just asinine.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
While this logic is formally correct, it also leads to the conclusion that we should kick out uneducated people, even if they were born in the country. If that's your argument for complicating the immigration procedures, you can't escape defending the expatriation of uneducated people as well. Now what?
Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
To your first point, regardless of reason, is fairly broad, and I don't think anyone who argues that doesn't agree with it being overly broad, but there are many many countries that have little to no restrictions on immigration for certain classes of people. For example, anyone who is born on in Ireland has a right to be both a Republic of Ireland citizen or a British Citizen. Also the Republic of Ireland allows anyone who has grandparents or parents born in Ireland to apply for citizenship.
The whole of the EU is a immigration free zone for other EU Citizens. Someone who is a French citizen can move to Germany for whatever reason they wish.
I am an American who legally immigrated to the UK and all government forms are printed in many languages that are not even found within the EU, such as Hindi and Chinese. Legal, illegal and asylum seeking immigrants to the UK have the right to demand services in their native language. While admittedly not everyone agrees with it, there are a many other countries that aren't so openly hostile to immigrants.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
Immigration raids benefit legal workers: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/1929-immigration-raids-benefit-legal-workers Seems when a company can't get slave labor they are willing to pay more for legal workers. How unsurprising.
"Name one other country that allows anyone to cross into its borders regardless of the reason."
Like, almost every other country that isn't having a religious-xenophobic-hyperventilating-freak-out episode, to be frank. For almost the entire existence of our country (and my life) we could travel from the US to Canada and back with no documentation and no questions asked. Worked perfectly fine, and at low cost.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Three points;
1. The argument that legal immigration into the U.S. is wrong and invalid. The U.S. grew, up until around WWII, largely through legal immigration. Since then, we have not needed to grow via immigration, though we permitted it even after WWII. The reality is that we do not need legal immigration to satisfy our labor needs; we are told by industries that we 'need immigrant workers', when in reality the demand from them is for lower-paid workers. Technology, service, every industry that employs legal or illegal immigrants does so to lower costs. The H1B program is an exampole of the abuse of a legal immigration program. Illegal immigration speaks for itself.
An example of illegal immigration causign problems is the Maine blueberry harvest. This used to be, in the 60s and 70s, dominated by Mic Mac indians and local people (like me) who could make decent money for a few weeks' work. It is now 60% Hispanics, many illegal immigrants. Some stay and take other jobs in Maine.
The refrain is ';who will clean the toilets? Americans don' want thosejobs' My question is, who cleaned them before Hispanics came to Maine? The answer is, Mainers. Americans. But they will cost more. If it's about wages, let's have that discussion. ok? It is my contention that Americans will do the work avaialble if they have a chance, and if they need to. If it's about minimum wage, ok, fix that. If it's about working conditions, fix that. But if it's about letting illegal immigrants do the work for less, then either legalize them
or send them home.
2. No one has a dog in this fight except for everyday citizens. Business obviously likes cheaper labor. Politicians like new voters, and cater to them. Unions see them as potential new members. Government and other agencies see them as needing services and increasing demand for their services. Other nations use them as 'safety valves', sparing their own economies the trouble of providing jobs or services. So how do we fix this?
3. Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. Let's either address that and stop the flow, or change the rules. I don't mind if we decide to allow unfettered immigration, or lower the barriers, but we should certainly make the choice. Until then, when will our government address the problem? Do we need to vote them out again and again until they get the point? When does our government stop listening to the corporations and start listening to us?
And just declaring amnesty doesn't work. Stopping the flow is the only first step, securing the souther border first. We cannot expect Mexico to do anything at all, as it is not in their interest. And if we do secure the border, expect Mexico to react harshly. The Mexican government most certainly has a stake in this, and will
be significantly impacted if we do shut off the flow. Then we can begin to have honest discussions with them, perhaps. But not before. We've proven to them that we do not have the will. We will need to change that first.
Complaints that legal immigration is difficult miss the point that it is supposed to be. The U.S. is much more welcoming of legal immigration than most any other nation. But we do have the right to choose who we let in, don't we?
ps- I used to play soccer with MANY foreign nationals going to school in the U.S., several if which were Nigerians. Wonderful people, and very different. Why does your wife's friend think they are a good candidate for legal immigration? We probably do give 'highly-educated' people a much easier path, but that makes senss to me. Is Italy so bad a place? I'm genuinely interested in this. Can you tell me?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Mexico operates a strict immigration policy which seeks to protect the interests -- especially the job interests -- of its own citizens. You will need to prove an income from a foreign company or have specialized skills to be granted leave to live and work in Mexico.
From http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/livingconsiderationsmexico.php#4
The truth of the matter is, US immigration policy is far more lenient than most countries in the world
I've heard this come up and the speaker never really supports it but just assumes everyone's on board. I've been to parts of the country without a substantial immigrant population, and believe it or not those crops get picked, those houses get cleaned, and those burgers get flipped.
... You sure those crops aren't being picked by migrants that show up during harvest season and vanish soon after?
Immigrant ninjas?
And when exactly is burger-flipping season, anyway?
Bow-ties are cool.
Well, it's that or kill all the old people. Your choice.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
No, you're absolutely right. It's not the government's job to create jobs.
IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO PATROL THE FUCKING BORDER
It's also the gov't's job to seek out and prosecute the employers of illegal immigrants, and not turn a blind eye to it because that cheap immigrant labor helps its corporate sponsors keep labor costs down.
What disturbs me most about the anti-immigrant backlash of the last few years is that so much vitriol is directed at the illegal immigrants while little is said about those who employ them. Is all this illegal immigration a conspiracy of poor migrant workers from Mexico who hoodwink innocent US employers into hiring them, or do US employers have the clout to lobby/bribe gov't into lax enforcement because it is in their economic interest to keep labor costs low? Does anyone believe these people would risk so much to cross the border if US employers faced any real risk in hiring them?
But no, let's focus the blame on the poor Mexicans, because, well, they're just so much easier to hate. But it's not racism or xenophobia, no sirree!!
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
After reading through 100 comments on the politics of Mexican immigrant workers, I realized I'm reading a technology blog, and all I wanted to know was why the fence didn't work. The article doesn't really say. It says the "fence" is composed of towers with monitoring equipment. But it doesn't really say what that equipment was supposed to do, or what it failed to do.
"Ninety to 100 percent of all illegal crossers, this camera system was going to identify and characterize this threat,"
What does that mean? Was it supposed to magically know who was crossing illegally and who wasn't? Or identify Mexicans -vs- Americans? That's silly. Was it just supposed to detect people, or movement? Did it fail at doing that?
"It's not a matter of, you know, do you look at the screen and see things?" Stana said. "Yes, you're going to see some things. The question is: Are you going to see things over time? Is it a quality image and is it a reliable image?"
This is still very vague. It is supposed to "see things over time" - what things? Over what time? Was it supposed to identify behaviors somehow?
This whole thing is really vague.
I agree with your comment. My wife is a legal immigrant and we are against illegal immigration. It seriously feels like a kick in the nuts every time, we hear that illegals should be allowed to stay/given amnesty.
I say kick 'em all out, get a sane work program going and make them all re-apply to come back.
I guarantee that if the employers of illegal immigrants started having to do the perp walk, illegal immigration would drop to nothing in about 2 seconds. But that'll never happen, because it would embarrass rich people and more importantly, cost them money.
Trying to build fences and the like to keep out illegal immigrants is like trying to hold back the tide. If we were serious about the problem, we'd go to the source and start arresting the people who employ them. But we're not serious about the problem - the government has chosen instead to pretend to do something about the problem, while not actually inconveniencing the rich and powerful (and oh, by the way, dumping huge amounts of money into the pockets of various defense contractors for silly projects like the "virtual fence").
Here's a helpful infographic as well: http://reason.com/assets/db/07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Have you ever considered that the US has enough domestic workers to fill its requirements for manual labor? I say this as someone that is directly affected by illegal immigration. I do residential carpentry, and I've watched my employer file bankruptcy because we simply can not compete with illegal labor. It's not like we're demanding a fortune (My best year I netted slightly above the poverty line), but we're not willing to put in 84 hour weeks and do work that is in violation of the building code. Even if we were willing to put in 84 hour weeks, we wouldn't be able to compete on cost when we're paying out 44 hours/week of overtime. If the process were less "long and cumbersome", and these illegals did flock to the immigration office and were turned away because we already have a large pool of domestic labor, do you really think that they'd be returning to their countries of origin? If so, I have some property to sell you.
Fixed fraction of the wealthiest person is impractical, because that changes so much and so rapidly and randomly.
What one could do, would be fixed fraction of the average income in the top 10% or top 25%.
Most Americans aren't aware of it, but the income-differences in USA really -are- grotesque as compared to 95% of the developed world. GINI is a measure of income-inequality where 1 would mean only the richest person had income at all, everyone else earns zero, and 0 would mean everyone has identical income.
Real countries are somewhere in between, offcourse. The tendency is for dictatorships, fascist countries and poor countries to have high indexes (only a tiny elite has good education and good income), whereas developed countries where reasonable education is available to all, has much lower indexes.
Have a look at the map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png
Most countries as developed as USA are at under 0.30, 0.30 is the average for european union for example, and the tendency is that the poorer countries are more unequal whereas the richest countries such as Sweden are around 0.25
USA ? 0.45 -- surrounded by countries such as the ivory coast, uruguay and uganda.
In short, if you're poor in USA, you're as far away from the rich-elite as you are in typical third-world countries that are ruled by a tiny elite that holds all the priviledges.
Grotesque.